text:
How are fixes used during an approach?
When I read through IFR materials online, or when I hear pilots talking about approaches, they often talk about using fixes to get to/through the approach.
Two questions (closely related):

Firstly, just to make sure I completely understand, what are fixes in this particular context?
Secondly, how are they used when a pilot is using a particular approach?

Related: How are airspace fixes named?

@Farhan I...guess that's related.  I mean, it is also about fixes.  Though, from reading the question and answers, that's about where the similarities end.

@Farhan, oh wait, I see it now.  The first sentence of the question gives some very brief detail on what they are.  I'm hoping for more, but that's a good start :).

Yes, it is only related. It is not similar or duplicate, and hence I only mentioned that.

This one is very closely related and may answer your first question.

@Pondlife Definitely covers the first one, thanks :)

What a fix is has been answered here but for now let's just say it's a known location that a pilot can navigate to if he has the right equipment. Fixes are shown on various charts and approach plates.
As for using those fixes on an instrument approach, there are lots of variations and details but again, let's ignore most of that for now. The basic concept is very simple:

Fly to an Initial Approach Fix (IAF)
Fly to other fixes as needed to execute the approach
Land (or go missed)

For example, here's the RNAV (GPS) 36R approach at KHSV:

You can see at the bottom of the map portion of the plate that both MASHA and FEWER are IAFs, so that's where the approach starts. Let's say you're approaching from the south-west and you've already descended to a reasonable altitude for starting an approach, following a STAR or vectors from ATC.
ATC says something like "N12345 proceed direct MASHA, cleared for the RNAV 36R approach". That means that you are now cleared to execute the approach as shown on the chart, with no further instruction from ATC (although they might have vectored you towards the IAF initially).
The chart tells you that at MASHA you need to be at at least 3000ft MSL so you simply fly there at or above that altitude. Since it's a GPS approach, you load it and activate it in your GPS unit, and you can follow the GPS track to MASHA.
After MASHA, the next fix is ENIKY and the GPS track will lead you east to that fix (which is a heading of 091° from MASHA). The profile view at the bottom of the plate shows that you must still be at or above 3000ft at ENIKY. Then you turn left to 002° and fly to UJOTY, where you must be at or above 2700ft. Then you continue to GEPDE at or above 1180ft. Then you land :-)
Of course, I'm ignoring a huge amount of detail here - like everything else printed on the approach plate! - but since this question is about fixes the main point is that they're simply a series of waypoints that you fly over (or past) to get to the runway. And obviously you also have to control your altitude as you descend, but the altitude is defined by the approach procedure, it isn't part of the definition of the fix itself. The same fix can be used in multiple approaches: MASHA and FEWER are also the IAFs for the RNAV (GPS) 36L approach).
Even though different approaches define and use fixes in different ways, the basic idea is always the same: just fly from one fix to the next until you get where you're going.

A fix is a point is space that defines a segment of an approach. You can think of it like an intersection on a street map that defines the approach. So when someone says "Take Jones Road to Main Street and Turn left. Then go one block and turn right onto Broadway" you can think of Jones & Main and Main & Broadway as two fixes.
In aviation terms such as the approach below, there are fixes named DIVEC, PONKE, WETOR, ROKMO, HEMAN, DUYET, NEPIC, and I-SFO, which the pilot follows to get to the intended airport. .

How does that work into a particular approach though?  Do airports usually have a fix at the head of an approach?  Or do you get to the fix and expect vectors?  Does it change depending on the class of the Airport?

In addition to the runway approach plates like rpb posted a large airport like SFO has published standard terminal approach route [STAR] plates. There will be several of them depending on which direction you are coming from. One of these will be filed as part of the flight plan. These will give you a series fixes to follow as you near the airport. There are instructions specific to which runway you are assigned and will tell you at what point you should expect to begin receiving vectors from ATC.

Example of a STAR: https://www.airnav.com/depart?http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1508/00375BDEGA.PDF

Fixes are in some ways like VRPs (visual reporting points when VFR). You fly to a fix, then fly a particular pattern away from the fix in a very tightly controlled, direction, speed and height designed to get you to close to the threshold at the correct speed and height. The exact pattern will be different depending on the type of approach you are using - each runway at an airport may have more than one, although depending on runway in use, only one approach will usually be in use at one time unless say you have an ILS failure in the aircraft and have to use an alternative. I'll let somebody who is instrument current explain an example, they will do a much better job than I can right now.

A fix is a virtual position that helps aircraft maintain their flight plan. It is usually defined as the intersection (in the geometrical sense) of two VOR radials, but other navigational aids such as GPS or even radar can be used to identify one of these positions.
The most basic use of fixes are to define a flight path using one or more fixes. The flight path is usually direct between two fixes but there are exceptions like the DME arc. Not only do fixes identify a flight path, but they can also be used to denote a position where a new altitude can be descended to. For example, on an approach an aircraft may have to maintain 7000 feet as is the case with DIVEC, but may descend to 6000 feet after passing DIVEC on the way to PONKE. In short, fixes are used to establish both the horizontal and vertical flight paths of aircraft.


text:
What is the proper procedure to change altitude when changing heading?
I'm told that, depending on the heading of your aircraft, you have to fly at particular altitudes.  Which, of course, makes sense because having planes flying in opposite directions at the same altitude is just asking for a mid-air collision.
My question is this though:  What about when you are changing your heading?  Pretend, for example, that for some reason you need to go the exact opposite direction (so, we were going due west, but now we are going due east, for example.)  I know you have to gain or lose 1000ft.  But do you change altitude after the heading change, before, or during?
So: What's the proper procedure for changing altitude when you change headings?
Bonus points:

Is this made more complicated if you are flying Visual Flight Rules instead of Instrument Flight Rules?
Are all these rules thrown out the window in Class B and C controlled airspace?

Oh come on! Now that I have typed up a lengthy answer, you change the tag to FAA-Regulations? :P

@SentryRaven I thought yours applied to FAA?!  It's why I changed it!

There, fixed it ;)

Well, my answer is general. It should apply to FAA regulations as well, but I didn't quote any AIP or FAR/CFR quotes... maybe others will want to improve my answer... plus, I wouldnt even know which FAA regulations to quote, since I am an ICAO-boy...

@SentryRaven You never know around here, that's for sure.  Thanks for the answer you've posted thus far though.

Well, this really should be tagged with somebody's regulations, since it likely isn't exactly the same world wide.  Heck, even "Class B and C controlled airspace" isn't the same world wide....

TL;DR:

Do you change altitude after the heading change, before, or during?

When flying under Air Traffic Control, you are expected to execute instructions after you receive them, following the motto Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. When receiving a turn and climb instruction at the same time, you are expected to start both, e.g.
 DELME, turn left heading 220, descend FL80

What's the proper procedure for changing altitude when you change headings?

You do not change altitude or flight level on your own when flying IFR. When flying VFR, you should adhere to the semi-circular rules when changing your direction and end up in one of the semi-circular areas. On turn techniques that allow direction change and altitude change at the same time, see Tyler's answer.

Is this made more complicated if you are flying Visual Flight Rules instead of Instrument Flight Rules?

Yes and No, because remember: You do not change altitude or flight level without being cleared or instructed to do so when flying IFR. Whether having to choose the correct altitude or flight level when flying VFR is more difficult than having ATC select one for you, is debatable.

Additional Information:
The rule you are talking about is the semi-circular flight level rules, which depending on the country, can either be applied West to East or North to South. Let's assume the example you have already used and differentiate between westbound and eastbound flights.
(Image Source: TU Wien)
The above picture shows that aircraft on a eastbound general track between 000° and 179° are bound to odd flight levels, such as FL210, FL230, FL250, etc.
Opposite traffic on a general track between 180° and 359° is bound to even flightlevels, such as FL220, FL240, FL260, etc.
This flight level you are bound to use is also the flight level you request in your flightplan, called the Requested Flight Level or RFL.
Imagine you have a flight going westbound and you have requested FL280 as your cruise level. You would maintain this flight level until you are cleared to descend by ATC. Even if a portion of the descent or arrival route leads in the opposite direction of your orignal track, it will be ATC who is responsible to assign the correct desend flight level, but these do not have to be necessarily following the semi-ciruclar flight level rules.
There is one scenarion where a pilot may want to initiate a flight level change due to changing jurisdiction and use of the semi-circular flight level rules, which is when crossing borders between countries that use west-east and north-south rules. If are on a westbound flight (approx track: 200° that requires even flightlevels, such as FL280 and cross the FIR border into a country with north-south rules that require an odd flight level, you would have a step climb or descent in your flightplan to accomodate this, e.g.:
[...] FIXXA UZ123 CROSS/N0265F290 UZ123 FIXXB [...]

It would still be ATC who clears you to climb to FL290 at that fix, but this way your flightplan is in accordance to local semi-circular flight level rules. Remember that when flying IFR, you never change the altitude or flightlevel unless you have been instructed or cleared to do so.
The same semi-circular flight level rules apply to VFR, just with the added 500ft to stay clear of the IFR flight levels. In most cases however, VFR does not entirely follow these rules, as the are VFR and their separation is based on visual identification and the see-and-avoid principle.
I am not familiar with airspace class B procedures, but in class C airspace, you require permissions to enter the airspace and will thus be assigned restrictions, which can be either a single altitude or flight level, an upper or lower restriction or a level or altitude band. If you are assigned either of the two latter options, you could apply the semi-circular flight level rules.
See below on an overview how other countries handle these semi-circular rules.
(Image Source: Delta Virtual Airlines - Not for real navigational use)
See also these related questions:
What is the difference between “flight level” and “altitude”?
What differences are there in Flight Level rules, internationally?

Fascinating but it does not answer the question.

@TylerDurden If the question were 'should I first eat the top or bottom part of a banana peel', then 'you should not eat a banana peel' is a perfectly acceptable answer! But with Pondlife's second paragraph, the OP's question is fully answered.

@TylerDurden: I see what you mean. I have restructured my answer to better fit the question asked, I thought at firs the was asking about how to chose the proper altitude/flight level and not how to climb and change direction at the same. I have left the part about semi-circular flight level in though as additional info. Does this look better now?

@SentryRaven His essential question is, to quote from the post: "...do you change altitude after the heading change, before, or during?" Which I already answered: usually you turn before you change altitude because you turn faster than you can change altitude, although sometimes you can do a climbing turn and do both maneuvers simultaneously (see my answer).

@TylerDurden I got that, hence why I updated my answer. It should fit now, the upper part.

This answer is somewhat US-based so details may vary but I think the principles are the same everywhere.
Under VFR there's no specific procedure because you're maneuvering at your own discretion and maintaining your own separation from other aircraft visually. Even if there was a specific procedure - let's say it's climb first, then turn - what would you do if that procedure took you straight through a cloud? Or into airspace that requires a clearance? There are far too many possible variables, so it's always left up to the pilot to determine the safest path of flight under VFR.
Under IFR you usually only make heading and altitude changes as instructed by ATC, meaning the issue doesn't arise, with (at least) two exceptions. First, you may be operating VFR-on-top but in that case you're effectively operating VFR and the previous remarks apply. Second, you may be on a cruise or block clearance and then you can climb and descend as you want anyway (with some restrictions).
As for class B and C airspace, in theory the cruising altitude rules apply everywhere above 3000'agl (in the US) but in those airspaces you're required to be in contact with ATC and their instructions will take precedence anyway.

In general, you can turn faster than you can change altitude, so normally you would first make the turn and then focus on climbing or descending to the target altitude.
Note that you can perform a climbing turn or descending turn, but usually you still have to continue adjusting altitude after the turn is complete. Sometimes you can make a climbing turn which ends up exactly 500 feet higher, so you are right on target. In that case both objectives are achieved simultaneously.
The answer is the same for both IFR and VFR and the type of airspace. When a controller gives an aircraft a new vector they do not tell the pilot how to execute the turn (other than sometimes specifying the direction left or right). For example, the controller might say:

November tree two five one zero, turn left heading one five zero / fly heading one five zero, climb and maintain five thousand five hundred feet

The only phraseology where ATC does not provide a turn direction is Fly Heading XXX. Turn instructions require a direction of turn, e.g. Turn left/right heading XXX or Turn left/right by XX degrees.

@SentryRaven I made a more exact phraseology quote, including an optional turn instruction.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
How strong is aircraft-grade spruce?
I have been trying to find some real numbers on how strong a single solid piece of aircraft graded spruce wood timber is, but haven't had much luck and the numbers that I have found so far were either not for aircraft graded spruce or the sources weren't credible enough or simply the numbers were conflicting with what else I had found previously.
My question therefore is: How much of an evenly distributed weight a piece of aircraft graded spruce can take e.g. as a wing spar or struts before structural failure?
The length and thickness of the timber doesn't matter as long as the spar and/or strut went under the load test alone. The reason that I'm saying this is that I can find numbers for aeroplanes that have spruce spars for example, and based on the maximum G, weight of the aeroplane, etc. I can have a rough guess for how much load the entire wing is certified for, but an entire wing is made of other components that will have an effect on the results of those tests, which means those maximum numbers may not necessarily be the limits of the spruce spar itself e.g. the wing ribs or wing surface might have a lower tolerance, therefore reducing the performance numbers in the certificate.

My recollection of the Modulus of Rupture is about 6000 psi for aircraft graded sitka, based on the maximum allowed grain runout, and a maximum of around 10000 for straight grain.  But you should be able to find everything you need in the old Forest Products Laboratory study at this google search link.
The key weakness in spruce (and wood in general) used for wing spars I've learned over the years is the propensity for dormant failures in compression, typically following a wing tip strike on a strut braced airplane, that places massive compression stress in the wood above the strut attach bolt.
It collapses the cell walls in that area, evidenced by only a tiny line across the grain, that may or may not even be inspectable, and which drops the wood's tensile strength in the affected area to a fraction of normal.
Dormant, because you don't find out about the problem until some day when the wing is loaded inverted for some reason, so that the failed section is loaded in tension, and oops there it goes.  For this reason I advise people to stay far away from an airplane with wood spars that's ever had a wingtip repair.

Remarkably informative answer!

As mentioned in this answer: spruce has a strength of 27.5 N/mm$^2$ in compression, from the 1941 document also linked.
Specific strength of spruce is about 2/3 of that of aluminium.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Is it considered good or bad practice to raise the flaps right after touchdown?
This question is about light, tricycle, single engine aircraft.
I have made it a habit to raise the flaps right after touchdown (when the nosewheel is on the ground). My instructor used to do that every time during initial training so I took over the habit.
It makes sense to do this for the following reasons:

better braking performance because lift is reduced while rolling out
less crosswind effect, reducing the risk of loss of directional control after landing
(less important) it's part of the after landing checklist, so when it's done, it's done

However, I was recently checked out on a C182 that I wanted to rent in Florida and when I raised the flaps right after touchdown the instructor shouted "what the < beep > are you doing? You should never raise the flaps until you've turned off the runway". He couldn't provide a good reason though, so when I told him about the things I listed above he simple mumbled something about keeping my attention on the runway instead of fiddling with the flaps lever (which is a something I don't even have to think about)
My question is: Is it really a bad idea to raise the flaps that soon after landing? Or is it actually a good habit?
(I noticed that most airliners also wait until they're clear of the runway, but these jets have spoilers to get rid of all the lift)

There's an old but interesting discussion about this topic here: http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/453498-retracting-flaps-touchdown.html

I raise the flaps after I know that I am not going around and most of the aerodynamic braking is done (can't hold the nosewheel up anymore). It helps quite a bit with braking and it puts more weight on the main wheels. If you don't know what switch you're pulling when you do it you probably shouldn't be flying an airplane. Now if you're a student pilot or something and you aren't comfortable with the aircraft yet sure just wait for the after landing checklist. Seriously though I can't believe how many pilots think that they will just grab the gear switch and lift it, do you even look first?

FWIW: I was always taught to concentrate on the rollout and slowdown etc and only raise flaps once clear of the RW

@p1l0t There is simply no need.   If you are heads down and looking at the flap handle, then you aren't looking outside.  There are things outside that can hurt you.  Also, if the aerodynamic braking is done, then putting the flaps up isn't going to put much more weight on the wheels because there isn't much airflow holding it up.

Most of the time, no you really don't NEED to do it. A good landing you really shouldn't need to use the brakes at all. Still I don't understand the fear in raising the flaps on the runway. Multitasking and dividing one's attention are essential skills of a pilot and the after-landing roll-out is generally a fairly low-workload time. I just don't understand how pilots are so afraid of pulling up the gear or getting distracted. It helps tremendously with reducing ground roll in my experience. MOST of the time though, I will agree with you that there is no need to do it until you clear.

Just putting this out there: A couple flying books I have read recommended putting up the flaps immediately after touching down, the reason being that with a strong enough gust and light enough plane, you could end up airborne again, and then abruptly dropped. Granted, these books are rather old and planes may have gotten heavier since the 1960s. However, I can think of a couple planes that would still have this issue, i.e., the Piper Cub (not sure that that plane has flaps though).

If you're that worried about how the flap setting may affect your aircraft in a crosswind gust, then maybe you shouldn't have landed there to begin with. That very same crosswind could hit you right as the flaps begin transitioning up. Then what? That's not really the time to be flipping switches.
As has been pointed out below, raising the flaps is really a non-essential part of the landing. It should wait until you're landed and clear of the runway.

I don't think the increase of weight on the wheels affects the braking performance unless you are braking hard enough to lock a wheel. So long as the wheel is not slipping, the braking torque depends on how much pressure the brake pads are applying.

The better procedure if you have enough runway available is to perform a flapless landing in high cross winds anyways since the cross wind component will be slightly smaller

"better braking performance because lift is reduced while rolling out" I would prefer to have more aerodynamic braking from the extra lift than better wheel braking, particularly right after touchdown. In fact, I bet you'll find you have a longer rollout with early flap retraction.

Just as an aside (prob too late to modify the question now) -- "Is it considered..." is really a fundamentally different question than "Is it a bad idea..."  Lots of people consider things to be true that actually aren't.  Answers that addressed what to do on a checkride pertain more to what is "considered" to be true, while other answers were more addressed toward what is actually true.

A friend of mine insists that the only way to get really nice landings out of his RC model Spitfire is to raise the flaps immediately after landing to load up the wheels and improve steering control.  I think he's probably hallucinating.

@Bosi72 There's a whole 'nother dimension to this question that has not been adequately explored in any answer.  Note that the original question focussed on what happens after the nosewheel is on the ground.  Begging the question, is it better to hold the nosewheel off as long as possible to maximize drag (which would seem to go along with putting the flaps down for more drag at the time you reach full aft stick/yoke extension, if not sooner),  or to put the nosewheel down as soon as possible for maximum wheel braking (no doubt with flaps retracted).  Sounds like a future ASE question...

Re "(no doubt with flaps retracted)."-- at least if there is any risk of skidding the wheels-- which there should be, if you are braking hard--

You should wait until clearing the runway before performing any non-essential checklist items because you are still in a critical phase of flight and at a relatively high risk while still on the runway.  You should focus 100% of your attention to controlling the airplane (don't stop flying the airplane until you come to a complete stop) and watching for other traffic (or someone crossing the runway in front of you) that might be a hazard.
There is also the possibility that in a retractable gear airplane you could accidently retract the gear if you are moving things while still preoccupied with landing.  Once you exit the runway and come to a complete stop, you can devote the proper attention to the after landing checklist so will be more likely to complete it correctly without missing any items that may become an issue on your next flight.
That being said, follow the guidance in your POH.  Sometimes there are abnormal situations that actually call for this, like voretaq7 mentions in his answer, the Cherokee POH references it as a short field landing technique.
FAA Guidance
The FAA also covers this in AC 91-73B - Parts 91 and 135 Single Pilot, Flight
School Procedures During Taxi Operations.   It says (in part):

7. SINGLE-PILOT PROCEDURES.
a. General.
...
In addition, upon  landing, no items should be changed or moved until
the entire aircraft has crossed the respective  runway’s hold short
line.
...
NOTE: After the entire aircraft crosses over the landing runway’s hold  short line, conduct after-landing checklist items, based upon
company  procedures, before contacting ATC for taxi instructions.

You could also fail a checkride for doing this
The PTS also repeatedly stresses the  objective:

Utilizes after landing runway incursion avoidance procedures.

To figure out what they mean by that, we can look at their Runway Incursion Avoidance material, which says:

Finally, after landing and upon exiting  the runway, ensure your
aircraft has completely crossed over  the runway hold markings. Once
all parts of the aircraft have  crossed the runway holding position
markings, you must hold  unless further instructions have been issued
by ATC. Do not  initiate non-essential communications or actions until
the  aircraft has stopped and the brakes set.

The retractable landing gear is an excellent point. It makes perfect sense. I've read a few stories of pilots retracting the gear after landing instead of raising the flaps.

(Unless you're Bob Hoover, who routinely retracted the gear while still on the runway, but as they say about him: planes were simply afraid of not doing what Bob Hoover intended)

The retractable landing gear issue is particularly notable because early in the landing roll you may not have enough weight on the wheels to activate the squat switch that prevents you from retracting your gear while you're using them to hold the plane up. Your perfect landing could turn into a nice, smooth gear-up incident if you bump the wrong switch.

Would it also make sense to have the flaps down just incase you have to lift off again for any reason?  Though maybe I'm being silly and thinking about aircraft carriers.

@JayCarr Well, in the event of a go-around, you will usually need to change the flaps to the takeoff setting either way.

It is a common misconception that you can fail a checkride for making one mistake.

In a slippery fast airplane, like an Mooney, raising the flaps, like full up elevator, will help seat the aircraft on the ground and improve braking.  If you don't have enough cycles to competently raise the flaps during rollout in a complex aircraft like a Mooney Bravo (which has more moving pieces than many turbines I've flown), then you're not yet qualified to fly it. The mixed gear/flaps problem was solved years ago when the gear handles were physically separated from flaps, and the handles were shaped to match the function: round for gear, flat for flaps.

I don't think it's easy to confuse landing gear switch and flaps lever.  F5 and G are pretty far apart on the keyboard LOL

If I don't raise the flaps on rollout in my Lancair 360 (a high performance 2-seat single with small, high-pressure tires) I can kiss about 500 ft of runway goodbye because I can't apply much braking without skidding until below about 40 kts.

@pericynthion Is that procedure in the POH?  The performance numbers are predicated on the procedures which are provided, and as long as you follow them, your landing distance will be within what they provide.  Therefore it doesn't matter if you "give up" that 500 feet (unless you are landing somewhere with a runway shorter than what the POH says that you should have).

@Lnafziger yes, I put it in the POH for short field landings (experimental amateur-built, so the builder or owner maintains writes and maintains the POH). In practice I use it on most landings, so as to be able to get off at an earlier taxiway and save a minute or two of taxi.

Raise the flaps after leaving the runway.
Consider:

A light single doesn't weigh that much and in the short time slowing down from the speed you touchdown at and taxi speed, the difference in weight on wheels between flaps 0 and flaps X is not worth worrying about unless you are landing on a true short field.
If the crosswind is that strong, you still need to apply proper control deflection with the flaps up.  Don't let complacency bite you on this one.
The after landing checklist is called for after exiting the runway, not while on the runway.

And the biggest reason:

You will fly something bigger and/or complex one day (maybe) and there will be more than a simple flap lever to touch and it is best to wait to mess with those controls until things have settled down and you are taxiing.

That instructor got on your case, I know examiners that will take exception to touching the flaps on the runway and I can say for certain any OE Captain or APD will really get on your case for doing it.  Start proper habits now, particularly if you aspire to fly anything bigger than a light single.

and you may need to do a touch-and-go, no flaps means you just power of the end of the runway

@ratchetfreak: well not necessarily, but certainly when you get to something more complex, which is why some advocate following similar procedures in small aircraft to "get used to it". Even thinking of attempting a go-around in something like a MU2 without flaps makes me shudder...

@ratchetfreak it is true you may need to raise the flaps (or set them to a specific setting) for a touch and go, but I'll argue that you can't use that exception to justify always raising the flaps on the runway.

Raising the flaps right after touchdown. Good or Bad? -- The answer is an emphatic Yes.
The major reason for not raising your flaps until you've cleared the runway and come to a stop is that it's one more thing for the pilot to do in an already workload-intensive period (landing). As others have pointed out you might hit the wrong control or otherwise mess up in a way that can ruin your day.
As a matter of general procedure I was taught not to raise the flaps until clear of the runway for normal landings, and that's what I do. It seems the safest way to operate since there's always plenty of time to do things after you've cleared the runway and stopped.

The major reason for raising the flaps while you're still on the runway is, as you pointed out in your question, better braking performance - I don't know about for the Cessna 182, but it's mentioned as part of the short field procedures in the Cherokee POH: There will be less chance of skidding the tires if the flaps are retracted before applying the brakes.
They're not saying "retract the flaps", but they're certainly waggling their eyebrows suggestively while pointing at the flap lever and mouthing "save your tires".
Empirically (yeah, I tested it, I'm strange like that) retracting the flaps on the Cherokee makes a small but appreciable difference in stopping distance (and a noticeable difference in how hard I can hit the brakes before the tires protest), so when I'm landing on an actual short field or drilling short-field procedures I retract the flaps during rollout at about the same point I would in a touch-and-go landing.

Yes good or bad?

It's contextual. If you're doing a legit short field landing and you need better braking, perhaps you should retract your flaps prior to coming to a complete stop (provided you have the directional control). If you're executing a normal landing... just don't do it. I'd consider it an abnormal procedure, honestly.

@PhilippeLeybaert It can be good, or it can be bad - it depends on the situation. As a general rule absent a good reason (like executing an actual short-field landing) it's not "normal procedure".

I say bad for some planes. Also other planes it will be bad in some conditions.  So follow what the operations manual says for that plane.
Using full flaps is a very high drag and very poor L/D ratio configuration for the plane to be in. By raising flaps the potential increase in tire grip (from reduced lift) for braking is offset partially or entirely by the reduction in aerodynamic drag.  There will be a speed threshold somewhere that will mean fully retracted flaps provides more braking than full flaps, but don't forget you have to transition from fully extended to retracted giving you a surge in your L/D ratio. Remember that takeoff flaps setting gives better L/D ratio than no flaps at that speed and AoA.
All of those things changing during landing does not lend itself to smooth, predictable, and easier controlled deceleration.  Plus, as others have pointed out, retracting your flaps partway through a landing distracts you from your task at hand, and for limited or no benefit or even, worse braking performance.
Edit:  The better braking performance with flaps up may be true for some planes but not for all "light" tricycle single engine aircraft.  This will depend on many design factors that the operation manual authors choose to use the KISS principal and just say always continue the rollout with the full flaps until you're off the runway or parked.
During rollout the wings may transition from flying to fully stalled due to the reduced air speed while on full flaps.  This will be a sever reduction in lift, that greatly enhances tire grip, while at the same time has all of the drag as before.  If the flaps are retracted in this sort of plane at that stage the wings may go back to flying while at the same time reducing the amount of drag (giving the surge in L/D).  This surge will be particularly bad during the transition from full to no flaps.  Even though there will not be enough lift to make any wheels come up, it will reduce the tire grip.  That reduction in grip could cause one of the rear wheels to skid, suddenly reducing the braking performance of one side of the aircraft and cause the plane to spin around.  Depending on the speed you're going when your nose gear touches down and you decide to retract the flaps, this could be very bad.  Even if that extreme doesn't happen, the the loss of tire grip at the same time as a reduction in drag from the flaps means less braking performance.
In the planes the OP flies their wings may remain flying (not stalled) for the "high" speed part of the rollout that aerodynamic forces are significant, so retracting the flaps severely reduces the lift and a bit of drag, giving the tires much more grip and braking power than any loss of aerodynamic braking provided by the flaps.

The transition phase is a good point. It's similar to the (often terrible) idea of raising gear on a twin during a takeoff engine failure. The massive increase in interference drag can be far worse than the gear down drag on its own.

I have experienced a very noticeable effect on braking performance when raising the flaps. The drag caused by full flaps is nowhere near as effective as the improved braking made possible by retracting the flaps.

How could a surge in L/D ratio cause a problem on rollout? Drag and lift will both be reduced and although drag will be reduced more, the landing speed of light single is too slow for that to have a noticeable effect.

How can a wing become stalled due to reduced airspeed on rollout? The AOA doesn't change at all.

I know the AoA doesn't change but the Reynolds Number does reduce with air speed, which changes the AoA that stall happens at.  Also retracting the flaps will also shorten the chord of the wing in some planes which also reduces the Reynolds number.

@PhilippeLeybaert In short, stall speed increases when you put the flaps up not because of a change in AOA, but because of a change in the total amount of lift that the wing can produce.  Therefore, the wing will stall at a lower AOA.  Note that in this case I don't think it really matters though because it won't take long (at all) after you touch down before it's stalled anyway.

@Lnafziger that happens too, but what I was saying about the wings stalling at slower air speeds and fixed AoA is with the flaps at a constant setting of fully deployed.  At full flaps as the plane slows and the Reynolds number decreases, the airflow going around the curve of the deployed flaps will not be able to stay attached to the surface anymore and will stall.  This will also create some back pressure up the surface of the wing and could push the flow detachment forward on the wing causing it to stall as well.  This is all beneficial to breaking.

You say that you don't even think about 'flipping the lever'.
Well, that means that you missed something very basic in flying habits.
Raising the flaps means - moving that relevant lever AND making sure that they are up - either visually or by indicator. This you should not be doing while taxiing and definitely not ON the runway.
Just like when you take of you apply full power - which means - you push the throttle all the way in AND check you have max RPM and all you engine gauges are green.
My answer is a definite - No.

Somehow I don't like the tone of this answer.

nothing wrong with the tone. ... or the ESSENCE of it.

If visually checking that the flaps are up is a distraction on the runway, why not skip that step?  The worst that would happen would be that the flap motor failed (if electric) and the flaps didn't go up  and then you'd be in the same situation as if you had not touched the flap lever in the first place.

Basic rules of doing stuff in an aeroplane: evaluate - decide - act - verify - repeat. So skipping the verify step every now and then tells your brains it's not a necessary step, removing it from the list of required actions. This increases your risk of not verifying something in the future. So never omit the verify step. As I have pointed out in other discussions, in addition to verifying everything you do, you shoul speak out your actions and verifications. There's a very, very good reason why airline pilots do this, and it's not just to let the other pilot know what you're up to. Google it.

My old instructor relayed a story to me this weekend that explains why you should NOT retract the flaps immediately.
A pilot (either student-Commercial or certificated-Commercial, unclear), touched down, and immediately went for the flaps.   Somehow, she grabbed the gear-lever instead, and raised it.
The mains were firmly down, so they did not retract.
However, the nose was still high, and it began to retract.
When the nose dropped a second later, it ended with the plane nosing into the ground, destroying the prop.

I guess it depends on the situation. If you do raise them make sure that:

You won't be going-around
You don't move another control by mistake
The aircraft is stable

Thanks to all those who answered. Lots of interesting and useful information here.

Just throwing this in as an answer since nobody mentioned it.
In a light aircraft on a large runway I usually raise the flaps right after touchdown if I actually want to roll FASTER in order to expedite vacating the runway.
Most of the runways where I'm landing have >4 times the LDA that I need, so I'm usually aiming for a quick touchdown before the exit intersection and a quick exit. If I touchdown way before my exit, then raising flaps and letting the a/c continue on the r/w at a fast pace is gladly appreciated by the 737 behind me on short final.

Old thread, but I assume you have also heard the "xyz - expedite taxi" -request...

Many of the reasons cited in the previous answers are valid. In consideration of these reasons, best practice should be to avoid flap control manipulation prior to exiting the runway. However, there are valid reasons to include flap retraction as a valid control manipulation upon touchdown. The primary reason I for which I would advocate the option is a need for a reduction in lift in strong and gusty winds crosswind conditions. For example, flap retraction at touchdown may be appropriate when landing a C172 in a 45° crosswind at 29G39. This technique should not be standard practice, nor should it be used by the inexperienced, nor should the inexperienced be in conditions which would call for the technique. But I would not say "never" appropriate.

This may be a dead thread, but I wanted to interject something my CFI taught me. He also instructed me to raise flaps right after touch-down in a 172, his reason being this:
In a high wing plane, full flaps divert air flow from the empennage and elevator. If you have the elevator deflected all the way up (yoke back), it creates much more drag then full flaps because of the way the air travels around the plane. If you have flaps down, your are getting some aerodynamic braking, but not nearly as much as you would if you clean up the flaps and hold the yoke back.

I think the flaps may create a downwash over the tail and actually INCREASE the angle of the airflow impinging against the raised elevator.

As an aircraft owner I apply full flaps (if not already down) about a second or two after the touch down, then a second later a nose up. This maximises the aerodynamic braking, and saves $ on brakes and prevents shimming.
When STOL competing, I open the door too (Cessna).

"then a second later a nose up"-- can you correct or clarify here?  Do you mean you apply full aft stick/yoke?  Do you mean you increase the aircraft's pitch attitude by some degree?  It would be interesting to understand a little better and more completely what you are talking about here.  Along the same lines, exactly when do you open the door?  On final approach?  After touchdown?  Enquiring minds want to know...

Simple answer, with the pitch up, what happens with the Lift and Drag when you accelerate, and what happens when you decelerate? So yes, I do start pulling yoke full aft, however with the feeling because flying is all about energy management. The door opening helps a bit in competitions and here is the example video (not mine). https://youtu.be/-WL2Lhe-zb0&t=285s     Btw if you lose the rudder in flight, you can still use doors to yaw (in Cessnas)

Raising the flaps while still on the runway is definitely grounds for getting at least a 'talking to' by the examiner :-( No pink slip but bad aftertaste especially when the checkride is in the bag otherwise.

I am not a powered aircraft pilot, and have not flown for years. But I would like to think I am still an aviator
I have long wondered why pilots of powered aircraft, whether large or small, do not pull back on the stick and use their elevators to increase aerodynamic drag and therefore braking effect on landing
My experience is purely in gliders. I am used to regulating my descent to land using elevator and judicious use of air brakes to maintain the desired speed. But after landing, and below stall speed, full application of the elevator and full air brakes in combination produce the greatest braking effect. Only expensive gliders had wheel brakes when I flew.
I assume this works the same way on powered aircraft.

We do use that method of aerodynamic braking, at least in certain circumstances. That method can be especially important when doing a short landing on unpaved surfaces.

If you are doing touch-and-go practice, you probably have to raise the flaps to a take-off setting while still rolling down the runway because most planes don't climb well on full flaps. If you get trained into doing that, maybe it becomes habit (for better or worse) to raise the flaps during roll-out even when your intent is a full stop.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What is the normal descent rate for airliners?
A few days ago I was on a flight from SFO to AUS (Airbus 320) and I was shocked by the steep angle of descent into AUS. I have been on over a hundred commercial flights but I've never experienced such a steep descent. I checked the flight on flightaware.com and noticed that the descent rate was 3,000 to 4,000 fpm. On other days the descent rate is closer to 2,500 fpm.
Flightaware data: My flight vs another flight.
Two questions about this:

What is considered a "normal" descent rate for the A320?
What could be the reason for the exceptionally steep descent compared to a normal flight?

also consider it against horizontal speed, 4000 fpm is 45mph (70 km/h) but the horizontal speed is 10 times that

Sure, but the angle of descent was exceptionally steep. GS was 480 kts with a descent rate of 3,900 fpm. On other flights it's 460 kts and 2,500 fpm.

The old slam-dunk approach perhaps?

The flight was 20 minutes behind schedule, so that may have saved them 5 minutes or so.

@ratchetfreak: 10 times is not much given the plane has glide ratio about 1:18 and cruising not that much above $v_y$.

In the EMB-145 I flew SOP was 3000 ft/min though under certain conditions 4000 ft/min was fine.

Just curious, how were you able to tell that the descent rate was so high during the flight? Did you feel the acceleration that led to it...?

@Mehrdad The plane was in a steeper than usual nose-down attitude, engines idle and spoilers deployed to keep the speed in check

There are a few possibilities, there's no way to know which is correct without more information:

There could have been an emergency on board. If someone is showing signs of a serious illness pilots will get the plane on the ground in a hurry to get the person medical attention as soon as they can. Or there could have been an issue with the airplane or a passenger, like someone very drunk and unruly in first class, say
As @falstro said it could have been a slam-dunk approach, where a controller directs airplanes to do steeper descents to solve sequencing issues. Pilots know if they say "unable" that they probably won't get another approach for awhile, so they'll accept a steep descent to get on the ground sooner
It could have been a request of the pilots for a non-emergency reason, like them trying to make up scheduling time, or to stay within fuel limits

I'd add to the above a desire to keep as high as possible as late as possible due to possible small arms fire. We did this in the 1990s into Bosnia and Croatia.

It makes sense for scheduling time, but not fuel limit. With glide ratio around 1:18 the 2500 ft/min is about what A320 does at cruise speed with engines at idle. So more than 3000 ft/min means spoilers and that is wasting energy.

@Terry: yep, that could be a big problem over Texas! :-)

@BobJarvis But not in Austin, which is full of hippie-liberals!

@Terry: In germany this is known under the idiomatic term "Sarajevo Approach" (german: Sarajevolandung). I have heared that this kind of approach is still trained by the Bundeswehr with the C-160.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNQRGOgHrZU

Normal descent rates will vary by operator and by airframe, but in general they follow this logic:

Power at flight idle,
Airspeed at or near max mach number or max KIAS,
Spoilers stowed.

Generally they wont push airspeed right up to the limits and incorporate a small margin, but this is general idea.  This is the most efficient descent because it means you stayed as high as long as possible but not so long you need to "cheat" with lift-destroying devices.  Whatever descent rate this configuration results in is the "normal" rate.
The actual descent rate will vary in practice.  ATC might descend you early, and then you will use a lower descent rate to stay higher longer (500 fpm unless they ask for more).  If they keep you high too long, you opt for a higher rate of descent (spoilers!).  The descent rate chosen will also be effected by the vertical wind profile.  You may have a strong headwind and since you are covering ground slower opt for a slower descent, but if that headwind reduces in strength that might end up biting you later.  Many descents are "at pilot discretion", and thus we'll typically stay high as long as we can until we can descend at (or near) idle to meet our crossing restrictions.
Passenger comfort isn't directly correlated to descent rate.  Many pax will claim their ears popped more, but in reality the cabin pressure change is the same regardless of the descent rate.  Things the pax are sensitive to that do occur are accelerations, and how fast the airplane is pitched into the descent will have a large impact on how the descent rate is perceived in the cabin (This is the same reason a vertical deviation of 50 feet in turbulence makes passengers think they dropped 1000 ft, it is all in the acceleration).  Deck angle may also play a role in passenger perception.

It's true enough that the absolute pressure change is the same, but, at least personally, my ears do pop more noticeably at high descent/climb rates. Probably just because the pressure differential doesn't built up as quickly and normal swallowing and/or subconscious ear popping is sufficient to prevent higher differentials from building up in shallower climbs or descents. My ears actually pop more noticeably just driving up to my house (400 ft elevation gained in ~15-20 seconds) than they do when flying a small airplane (obviously much more than 400 ft elevation change, but slower rate.)

Given the noise abatement initiatives at AUS, it could be a voluntary procedure, usable depending on conditions.  (Steep ascents are sometimes used for this reason at airports with noise issues.)
Looking at the data, the steep descent rate (3960, 3840 fpm) was only for a couple of minutes near the start of the descent.  True, next day's flight didn't exceed 3000 fpm, but the previous day's got to 3660 fpm for a couple of minutes, so your flight doesn't look way out of line.  In fact, the odd feature of your flight seems rather to have been the extremely slow ascent, almost half the typical climb rate.

And since it's only for a couple of minutes, it's possible that ATC just gave a fairly late call "Pass SOMEVOR at or below FL 250" a little later than expected could mean the pilot has to dump the spoilers and point the nose down to meet that requirement.

3000 fpm is considered normal at one company that I worked for.  Obviously, we can deviate within reason.  I have routinely descended at more than 3000fpm in non-emergency situations.  Aggressive stepdowns on a STAR, controller requests expedited descent for traffic, slam dunk from 10,000ft+ (cleared for visual, hand off to tower, immediately cleared to land), etc.
That being said, 3000fpm was set as normal as per GOM for a reason; passenger comfort.

Yeah the latter point here is about right: 3000ft is at the "high" (or low, depending on your perspective...) end of comfortable descent rates. That doesn't mean it will never be busted as a soft limit, but a little over this for a few minutes isn't entirely unreasonable.

First of all, don't take the altitudes and descent/climb rates as fact from FlightAware, they could be pulling from different sources with different time delays or time keeping.
Reasons for higher rate of descent at the initial part of descent, could be anything from a late handoff from a previous center sector, to restricted/military areas being active, or having to wait til late to start a descent.
Normal decent rate varies... but I'd say an average of around 2000-2500 feet per minute.

I was on the flight, and it was a very steep descent. Steeper than anything I've experienced before. I only checked FlightAware because it felt a lot steeper than usual.

There is no single normal descent rate in fpm. It varies widely.
A normal descent clearance only requires at least 500fpm. Unless ATC gives a hurry/expedite command.
For most of the explanation I assume an idle thrust descent, without an emergency or any reason to waste energy on purpose. A normal descent is almost a glide, with the engines producing minimum idle thrust.
In that scenario, descent rate is largely proportional to TAS (true airspeed).
So when the descent begins, say from a Mach 0.78 (250kias/450ktas) cruise, descent rate should be around 2500fpm.
This rate of descent should be maintained until transition from Mach to IAS happens. At that point the lower the aircraft goes, the slower the TAS will be, as a consequence, the descent rate will slow down proportionately.
At the same time, idle thrust at high altitude is quite low. The lower the aircraft goes, the higher idle thrust will be, further moderating descent rate.
In many jurisdictions there's a 250kias limit, so the descent rate should reduce a lot 11500 and 10000 to slow down from around 280kias to 250kias, since the true airspeed reduced, so will the descent rate.
Assuming no further speed restrictions, pilot should keep 240-250kias (resulting in about 1300fpm down) until entering the base leg or in the case of a straight in approach around 15nm final. At that point the aircraft should be gear down and rapidly transition to final approach flaps and final approach speed, again, true air speed reduces again, so does rate of descent, assuming a 140kias final, this should lead to around 700fpm descent.
A 3000fpm descent could happen if ATC assigns an altitude restriction, and the pilot trade airspeed for altitude in idle/low thrust, until a minimum safe speed is achieved. Once ATC clears the aircraft to continue its descent, the pilot can trade altitude for airspeed which would result in higher sink rate for a few minutes until the aircraft accelerates back to cruise descent.
If the pilot is too high or is given a hurry through descent clearance, it can deploy spoilers and/or lower the landing gear which could result in a 4000fpm descent.
Some congested airspace calls for quick descents to avoid invading climb/descent areas for other airports.
There's this saying that speed breaks is for pilot's mistakes, but not for ATC's mistakes... That's not a good wisdom. If you don't cooperate with ATC, you might find yourself in a hold or unnecessary detour for your lack of compliance. What might look like a mistake for a pilot might be unavoidable for ATC (for instance short staffed for a few minutes).

"At least 500fpm" is incorrect.  U.S. ATC expects at least 1000'/minute descent rate. Some of the other numbers & explanations are incorrect as well. Down-voted for inaccuracies.

I would think ATC at a busy airport would want to kill a pilot who insists on final approach speed and flaps 15 miles out.

I don't necessarily follow all the math and other items necessary to understand the difference between IAS and TAS, but 250kias/450ktas seems like a huge gap. Is that really reasonable?

ATC might EXPECT 1000fpm, but the regulation is 500fpm. I watch planes for hours everyday on flightradar24 and see 500fpm descents all the time, although it really isn't the norm. If ATC asks you to descent just 2000ft, a 1000fpm descent would be unnecessary.
You get 250kias for 450ktas flying quite high, while at sea level 250kias=250ktas.

Zach quite often traffic will be slowed down to 180kias by ATC on final, otherwise they would need too much spacing between birds on final. Just look at ORD / ATL on very busy hours. If an airline pilot wants final approach speed 10 miles out, ATC is the least of his concerns, his employer might fire him for wasting fuel on purpose.
Its really interesting watching some 100% optimal descents where a B787 will go from FL400 to landing with speed really high until FL100, and still 250KIAS until final, really cool !

Most people don't realize that a turbofan consumes as much fuel/hour at FL400 cruise as it does IDLING on the ground or at 2000ft. One of many pilots task is to minimize time spent below FL100, safely and within regulations off course.

The FAA expects more than 500 fpm. AIM 4−4−10. Adherence to Clearance d. When ATC has not used the term “AT PILOT’S DISCRETION” nor imposed any climb or descent restrictions… Descend or climb at an optimum rate consistent with the operating characteristics of the aircraft to 1,000 feet above or below the assigned altitude, and then attempt to descend or climb at a rate of between 500 and 1,500 fpm until the assigned altitude is reached. If at anytime the pilot is unable to climb or descend at a rate of at least 500 feet a minute, advise ATC.

authors: Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні


text:
What is the standard rate of turn for heavy aircraft?
I have heard and read many times that for "heavy aircraft", they use a standard rate of turn which is 1.5° per second (4 minute turn), but I have never found an official source which addresses this. Although... I'm actually not even sure where the normal 3° per second (2 minute) standard rate turn is defined either.
The wikipedia entry on ROT (Aviation) says:

Light aircraft are equipped with 2-minute turn indicators while heavy aircraft are equipped with 4-minute turn indicators.

I don't see why "heavy" would have anything to with turning rate, but airspeed certainly does.
So, I'm wondering if this is true, or just something they think is true because airplanes often use half-rate turns at airspeeds above 250 knots and bank limiting prevents them from making a standard rate turn at airspeeds above ≈ 200 knots?

Related (but not quite duplicate) answer: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/1407/69

@Lnafziger I know, that's sort of what prompted this question.

I'm only able to find the following about bank angles, which specifically refers to turns while in a holding pattern:
AIM 5-3-86.(b):

(b) Make all turns during entry and while holding at:
(1) 3 degrees per second; or
(2) 30 degree bank angle; or
(3) 25 degree bank provided a flight director system is used.
NOTE-
  Use whichever requires the least bank angle.

This is also in the Instrument Procedures Handbook which under *High Performance Holding on page 3-25 says that a flight director has a bank angle limit of 25 degrees.
If we use the above guidelines, then a flight director will use 3 degrees per second or 25 degrees of bank, whichever is less.  My calculations give us the following bank angles and associated rate of turns1:
        Standard Rate      Actual        Rate
TAS      Bank Angle      Bank Angle     of turn
80         13.17           13.17         3.00
120        19.34           19.34         3.00
160        25.08           25.00         2.99
200        30.33           25.00         2.39
240        35.07           25.00         1.99
280        39.31           25.00         1.71
320        43.10           25.00         1.49
360        46.48           25.00         1.33
400        49.48           25.00         1.20
440        52.15           25.00         1.09
480        54.54           25.00         1.00

As you can see, a jet travelling at 480 Knots TAS (not uncommon at altitude) would require almost a 55 degree bank angle to make a standard rate turn, which would be an amount considered by almost anyone as excessive.
When limited to 25 degrees of bank, this would result in a rate of turn of 1 degree per second (or a 6 minute turn).  Anything over 160 Knots TAS would be less than a standard rate turn, and once past 320 Knots TAS it  wouldn't even be a 1/2 standard rate turn.
As far as the 1/2 Standard Rate, they often use the 1/2 BANK autopilot mode at high altitudes.  This would result in a rate of turn approximately halved, so a 360 degree turn would take 12 minute at the same 480 Knots TAS.  ATC expects the normal bank in the terminal environment though, so it isn't used at lower altitudes.
As others have said, transport category jets don't even have a rate of turn indicator (it isn't required by 14 CFR 25 if you have a third attitude indicator) and they simply fly bank angles.  Normal hand flying is limited to 30 degrees, which would allow a standard rate turn at a slightly higher airspeed, but then starts to taper off just the same.
That being said, the Instrument Flying Handbook does include this little tidbit in the section on turn indicators on page 5-21:

The dial of these instruments is marked “2 MIN TURN.”  Some
  turn-and-slip indicators used in faster aircraft are  marked “4 MIN
  TURN.” In either instrument, a standard  rate turn is being made
  whenever the needle aligns with a  doghouse. A standard rate turn is
  3° per second. In a 2 minute  instrument, if the needle is one needle
  width either side of  the center alignment mark, the turn is 3° per
  second and the  turn takes 2 minutes to execute a 360° turn. In a 4
  minute  instrument, the same turn takes two widths deflection of the
  needle to achieve 3° per second.

So maybe at some point in the past it was more common (or maybe faster but-not-quite-as-fast-as-todays-jets) but you just don't see that anymore.  (It could be where all of the references to 1/2 standard rate turns come from though.)

1 Math adapted from the formulas here.

Many airliners, heavy or otherwise, don't even have turn indicators anymore.  Airliners don't worry about rate of turn, they just go to a given bank angle, typically 25-30 degrees, and are done with it.
That said, it's true that rate of turn doesn't depend on weight, but heavy aircraft usually fly faster, hence having a slower rate of turn.  Pretty much all airliners go too fast to make a 3 minute turn practical unless in the terminal area and slowed down.

I believe everything you said is right. Thanks. I accepted Lnafziger's answer, though, because it more directly addressed the specifics of my question.

Standard Rate of Turn for Heavy Aircraft?
Standard rate turn is, well, standard. The standard is 3 degrees (of heading change) per second. So a 360 turn takes 2 minutes at the standard turn rate. Didn't say anything about the aircraft ....
Every aircraft type has a specific bank angle at which it is turning at the standard rate. It's all due to the design of the aircraft. Further that bank angle yielding a standard rate of turn changes with airspeed.
2 minute turn indicator
Means "line me up and it will take you 2 minutes to do a 360 turn." This happens to be a standard rate turn, not co-incidentally.
4 minute turn indicator
Means "line me up and it will take you 4 minutes to do a 360 turn." This just happens to be half standard rate. We know this because it takes 4 minutes for a 360. It make the arithmetic simpler than say, a 7 minute turn indicator.
Why bother with one of these, never mind 4 vs 2?
Compass problems? Roll into a standard rate turn and hack a watch. Now you can time yourself to reasonably accurate heading changes.
Why a 4 instead of a 2?
Allow the aircraft to do a timed turn but with less bank.
Huge, lumbering aircraft don't roll so quickly - turn timing is affected. Heavy & huge means for any bank angle it's more of a control issue. And, passenger comfort considerations.

Time for a 360 turn at 30 degree bank angle is TAS/60:
120 knots   2 minutes
180 knots   3 minutes
210 knots   3.5 minutes (airliner, clean)
240 knots   4 minutes ("heavy" airliner clean)
480 knots   8 minutes (airliner in the cruise at altitude)
Times will be slightly longer at 25 degrees.  You can't fly a rate one turn in a commercial aircraft these days.

Like Ralgha said, larger aircraft with EFIS typically, don't have turn indicators or turn and slip.  Best judgment and flight director is use what one would use to make turns.  I'd have to dig into my manuals to make sure, but I think that a bank angle for standard rate is calculated up to a certain bank angle (I think less than 30 degrees) for pax comfort. Standard rate at 300kts is going to be a pretty bank angle.

Welcome to Aviation.SX!

I can believe they don't have rate of turn indicators, but I have a hard time believing they lack turn coordiators (slip indicators) since every glass-cockpit PFD I've seen has that. It's in the form of a little bar under the bank indicator arrow.

As best I can determine a slip-skid indicator is required equipment in all US registered civil aircraft (91.205) - it may not be attached to a turn coordinator (see for example 25.1303) but it's got to be there in some form: either a traditional ball-in-a-tube or an electronic equivalent.

I think you guys are confusing turn and slip indicator with inclinometer.  Two different things.  Turn and slip resembles the turn coordinator (important differences) but both include inclinometer functionality.  Every aircraft that I've flown that has EFIS also has the inclinometer at the top of the PFD.


text:
Why do airplanes not have manual transmission?
I have limited experience with flight simulators but I have never bumped into a plane with manual transmission while, on the contrary, it's very common for other means of transportation (like cars and bikes) that rely on engine with some form of transmission control.
First of all, I'd like to know if it's actually true that no airplane have (or had) manual transmission and, secondly, why that is so.

Incidentally, most trains and some other vehicles have no gearbox either, for other reasons, so the question, might be turned around (Why do cars and bikes have one?) Wikipedia has a rather readable article on the topic.

I always wished that my plane had an R (rallye) gear...

I read a story a long while ago told by Douglass Bader about crashing his Hurricane on take off because he had it in high gear, so it had a manual shift.

@PatFromCanada:You mis-understood.  Planes of that era had two speed superchargers, that could be shifted from low boost to high boost, with low being used at lower altitudes and high being required for maximum performance at altitude.  This is not the same as shifting the propeller RPM.

@PlasmaHH R usually indicates reverse in gear boxes. Now THAT would be interesting in an aircraft...

+1 because this was one of my first questions before I ever even flew

@PlasmaHH I thought that R stands for Rocketbooster.

@PlasmaHH: It was fairly standard for B727 to back up from the gate on its own power (I watched it myself as late as sometime in the 2000s, probably at La Guardia).

Aircraft have fixed gears (when they have gears at all)! However in a sense a variable-pitch propeller can be considered analogous to transmission in a car and it was manual in some aircraft.
The power transmitted by propeller is, within some reasonable range, proportional to its rotation rate. And so is, again within some reasonable range, the power produced by the engine. So for slow planes a fixed pitch propeller with connected by fixed gear does a decent job. As you open the throttle, the engine speed increases, so does the propeller and that's exactly what it needs to do to transmit the power. Simpler aircraft have no gears at all and propeller is mounted directly on the engine shaft, higher power engines often have 2:1 reduction gear as the engine rpm would be too high for a propeller.
Now at higher speed, the apparent propeller pitch is reduced as the air is already moving, so it would spin faster and faster and eventually too fast for the engine. To counter this, faster propeller-driven aircraft have variable pitch propeller. As speed increases, it is set to higher angle of attack (coarser) so it keeps delivering power without increasing rpm.
Early variable pitch propellers had manually controlled pitch, but quite quickly constant speed propellers were developed (many WWII aircraft had them already) where a weight-on-spring controls the propeller pitch so that constant rpm is maintained. The manually controlled units required a lot of attention and the constant-speed system is rather simple, so manual pitch control was quickly abandoned.
And that is kind of equivalent to perfect variable gear transmission. The pilot still has a throttle lever and a propeller pitch lever and selects power and rpm independently. Higher rpm allow higher power, but don't require it, so landing is usually done with low power, but max rpm so the engine reacts quickly if power is added (does not need to spin up). During cruise some more moderate value is selected (according to manufacturer recommendation) to reduce wear of the engine.
Turboprop engines always have constant-speed propellers, because in a turbine engine the difference between turbine speed at idle and at full power is not actually that big. Again the rpm limits maximum power, so landing is done with low power, but high rpm and the engine reacts quickly when power is added.
Last the turbojet/turbofan engines just turn the turbines and compressors as they need. It's not much different from the fixed propeller really, though the jet engines now usually have variable guide vanes in the stator (that are just linked to rpm).

Because most aircraft engines do not have geared transmission at all:

Image from wiki
The power is directly transmitted from the turbine to the compressor with a rigid shaft.
It is true, though, that some engines have it, in particular, propeller engines:

Image from ATSB
but you have to realize that this a fixed gear ratio, no gear shifting is involved and thus, no manual nor automatic "transmission" is required.
What you might have, in "old style" propeller engines, is different levers/knobs for manifold pressure/throttle, propeller pitch and mixture.

Apart from aircraft, boats also use fixed gears. The thing to realize is that changing gear ratios is only really necessary for vehicles that use wheels to stop the engine from stalling when you first start to move because turning the wheels means needing to shift tons of weight. In contrast, turning a propeller, be it in air or water, only requires you to overcome the friction of the drive shaft and the tiny amount of initial air/water friction. If you jack up a car and have the wheels not touch the ground I bet you can spin the wheels directly in 5th gear without going through gears 1-4

Do turbine engines also have gears? I can't imagine that the compressor and fan operate at the same speed; do they or is there some other mechanism in play?

@NickT jet engines do not have gears, turbine and compressor share the same shaft. What you can have are multiple shafts: 1 for high pressure copressor/turbines, and 1 for low pressure turbine/fan. Some even have 3.

@slebetman - It is the clutch not the gearbox that is required to start off. With many trains this is done using electric motors as part of the transmission as they can supply torque without any rotational speed, while the diesel engine provides electrical power for the motors. Equivalent to the gearbox would be propeller pitch, changing the amount of thrust for an amount of throttle and revs.

@Kickstart: Ah, but even the clutch can't start a car directly in 5th gear. The problem is that the gear ratio necessary to defeat the huge amount of inertia is very different from the gear ratio you want to cruise at

@slebetman - often it can move off with care in high gears. Problem is that in (say) 5th gear idle speed is 20mph+ at idle, and at lower speeds the engine will be incredibly easy to stall as (compared to 1st gear) you have very little thrust (ie, from gearing alone you commonly only have about 25% of the thrust in top compared to 1st, plus losses from slipping the clutch, plus limited torque at low rpm, added to which you are relying on the likely poor clutch skills of the driver). With performance ICEs there is a far from linear relationship between throttle and power as revs rise.

If we're loose in the definition then the C-130 had a gear, kinda-sorta. Low Speed Ground Idle, used for controlling taxi speed and "dust up" during engines-running ground operations, dramatically cuts fuel to the engines causing the prop to spin at about 60% vs normally 100%. There is no physical gear changing, just fuel flow. And no, you cannot engage LSGI in flight!

There are some jets with gears so the fan spins one half to one third as slow

@ptgflyer I haven't excluded them, they are simply yet another example of fixed gear, no gear shifting involved.

There seems to be some airplanes with gearboxes and clutches, do you have any information about these? http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/material/attachments/otkes/tutkintaselostukset/en/ilmailuonnettomuuksientutkinta/2007/c32007l_tutkintaselostus/c32007l_tutkintaselostus.pdf

@Masse it seems to me that I mention gearboxes in the answer, don't I? and clutches do not necessarily mean gear-shifting/transmission.

I understood that you meant fixed gears. I really don't know gear technology, but I assumed that clutches imply some sort of gear-shifting, manual or automatic.

Torque
I suspect that the real answer involves torque.
Engine RPM with vehicle stationary
Aircraft engines don't have or need multiple gears because the engine doesn't move the aircraft from standstill by applying torque to wheels. Instead an aircraft engine can run at full RPM while the aircraft is stationary at the start of a runway.
If you put your car in top gear (6th?), ran it at maximum RPM (8000?) and dropped the clutch, something would break - at the very least you'd burn the clutch and crawl away slowly. Aircraft engines don't have or need a clutch, ultimately because they are pushing air, not turning wheels on tarmac.

With only the top gear on a moving car, it would still be impossible to drive on a steep road. The gear box is not only needed to overcome the car inertia, but more generally to use the engine in a compatible torque region, from large torque / small displacement (low gear), to large displacement / low torque (high gear). This is the same principle at work in a block and tackle. Please correct me if I'm wrong, which may be very possible.

@mins: You are not wrong and that is the point I had in mind when writing my answer. Even with a fixed pitch propellor, an aircraft engine operates in its effective torque region without the need for multiple selectable gear ratios.

Variable ratio gearing in road vehicles (cars, bicycles, etc.) is required to match the speed and torque capabilities of the prime mover (gas engine, human leg power, etc.) to the speed and torque requirements of the road wheels over varying conditions of vehicle speed, road grade, etc. Basically, there is a need (or at least benefit) to vary the mechanical advantage between prime mover and driving wheel(s).
The prime mover (jet or piston engine, turbofan or propeller) in an aircraft produces thrust largely independent of airspeed, so for many aircraft, variable ratio gearing is not required. For propeller aircraft, it can be beneficial to vary the mechanical advantage between the powerplant and the airstream. It is done, not by variable ratio gearing, but by varying the pitch of the propeller. For one thing, varying the pitch can vary mechanical advantage over a continuous range where a gearbox is limited to a few fixed steps. For another, gearing systems add a lot of weight. Changing gears would mean disconnecting the engine from the propeller as a different gear ratio is selected - that's a big reliability/safety issue, and for a piston engine, couldn't even be workable. Piston engines can't run without a flywheel; in an aircraft, the propeller serves as the flywheel.
So, where the benefits of variable mechanical advantage justify the added cost, weight, and complexity, a variable pitch propeller is fitted.
Some variable pitch systems provide a lever which directly control the pitch - the pilot moves the lever over a range between "fine" (engine gets more mechanical advantage, suitable for take-off) and "coarse" (engine has less mechanical advantage, suitable for cruise).
Other variable pitch systems provide a lever which selects a target engine RPM. The pitch control system continously adjusts the propeller pitch in an attempt to maintain the selected RPM. The pilot uses the throttle to increase or decrease engine thrust, and the pitch control to optimize the engine RPM for the operating conditions (take off, climb, cruise, etc.). On a PA32-300, for example, the pitch control would be fully forward (max RPM) for taxi, take-off, and initial climb-out, but would be adjusted back somewhat for cruise to reduce engine RPM (and fuel consumption).
You could think of the pitch control systems I've described as analogous to a manual and an automatic transmission respectively, but the analogy is a loose one at best.

Slightly different answer to the last one.  Air whipping engines don't need a lot of torque to push through viscous friction that resists blade travel.  That is why quadrotors work and yet are very light.
Simple comparison, push against a wall and there is a normal force pushing back.  Now wave your arm in the air. The only resisting force is a function of your arm speed.  It's tiny.
Since they don't need to use gear reduction to increase torque like other applications, they don't need a gear changing transmission. In fact Bernoulli effect works on thrust from air flow over the blade so you want the propellers spinning as many times as possible to get maximum lift. Electric motors for quadrotors spin 10000 RPM for example.  They control motor spin speed through throttling air and fuel for turboprops or pulse width modulation for electric motors.  Turbines are air and fuel I think as well, but that's not my expertise.

Flight simulators don't have geared transmissions because real planes don't have geared transmissions.
The closest thing a plane would have is a variable pitch prop.
With a vehicle with wheels, the engine rpm is easily calculated as a ratio with ground speed and the gearing.  There's nothing like that with an aircraft.

Agreed.  A variable pitch prop is the airplane equivalent of a transmission.

Another factor not mentioned is that in land vehicles gears are used for travelling slowly, so the engine can stay in its operating range.  But an airplane won't fly below a certain minimum stall speed, so gears are pretty pointless.  In a typical small plane, your range of flying speeds (say 65-150 mph) corresponds to an engine speed range of roughly 1700-2500 rpm.  If you throttle back to idle (or your engine quits), you basically have to glide, trading altitude for the airspeed needed to stay above stall speed.

Because propellers in water and air use the friction to move the object. And this friction is far less than the one between asphalt and tires. In one way, the gas is acting as gearbox. The other side of this coin is that it makes it hard to do fast accelerations from 0.

A lot of complicated answers... but the simple truth lies in the term itself - transmission!
Power must be transmitted, somehow, from the engine to whatever will push the vehicle forward - the wheels or the propeller. Internal combustion engines have an optimum power transmission rpm range - above or below which the efficiency of the engine drops drastically.
The difference between land vehicles and air or sea vehicles is, as mentioned by others here, that the friction between the wheel & land needs a much greater starting torque to get that wheel moving. Whereas, rotating a propeller through the air or water can be done much more easily & quickly.
In fact, this also ties up with why only land vehicles have (and can have) brakes. Neither air nor sea vehicles can have brakes. Because braking involves that same friction which was overcome to get the vehicle started. Due to lower co-efficients of friction, both sea & air vehicles continue to move even if the engine stops functioning. Obviously, air vehicles never need to be braked to a standstill while still in air. But water vehicles do and that is achieved by reversing the direction of the propellor's rotation.

actually aircrafts can have airbrakes (spoilers) and most definitely have wheel brakes. plus, reverse thrust. Sure, these are not used while in flight, but they exist nevertheless.

@Federico: Actually, some aircraft are certified to use reverse thrust in flight.  The DC-8 re-engined with turbofan engines is one, and there are others.

@SkipMiller thanks, I didn't know.

authors: Lã Vįd Åløcá


text:
What is the ratio of actual flight time to simulator time on type for airline pilot training?
I know that training flying time on large commercial aircraft is awfully expensive but I'm just curious how much training time a typical scheduled passenger airline pilot gets on the real craft these days? In particular I'm motivated by investigation reports that reveal that current simulators may have flaws and shortcomings in realistically simulating some parts of the flight envelope.
I'm sure this varies  a lot by pilot, airline etc. so I'm not at all looking for an exact answer, just a approximate figure.
e.g. Say, I'm flying on a A-320 or a B-787 commanded by a newly type-certified first-officer, what could be the bare minimum actual flight time (not simulator time) on an A-320 / B-787 that he could have had?
PS. What is the type-rating process? Does that have no need for flight time? Can you get Type rated with 100% sim time on type?

Wish I had an exact answer, but for the official type rating on a pilots certificate, it's most of the time, done with 100% sim time. To be allowed to operate in the airline, there then is an IOE(Initial Operating Experience) with various training personal, but on actual flights. I don't know the actual numbers breakdown, and of course it depends on airline and pilot too.

Zero hours in type.
The first time a new FO flies the actual airplane could be their first revenue flight with a training captain in the left seat.  Technically, these flights are still considered training, specifically "initial operating experience" (IOE) and a few trips will be flown with training captains before the new FO is released to fly with regular line captains.  IOE is conducted on revenue flights though, so its entirely possible that the before your flight leaves the gate that the FO has exactly 0 hours in type.
The initial training (leading to either a full type or an SIC type) and the upgrade training (full type ride if you only had an SIC type) are 100% in FTD and level D FFS (full flight simulators) and the checkride is in the FFS.

Thanks. So at any point between the CPL and the ATPL is there a requirement for actual (non-sim) flight time on these large aircraft. I know large aircraft is a fuzzy term but what I mean to ask is can a new FO be flying a revenue flight with zero actual flight training hours not just on that Type but   pretty much zero hours on any of these large passenger aircraft used by scheduled airlines?

@curious_cat Yes, if the FO has no previous airline experience he is still the same as all other new FOs and gets the exact same training.  These days the minimums for FOs is higher, but back in the mid 2000's you could have someone go from flying a piper seminole with 500 hours into the right seat of a regional jet and his very first hour of actual jet time would be a revenue flight with passengers.

How often are non revenue, training flights even flown using typical ("expensive") airline equipment. e.g.  A-320 or a B-787 etc. What training  / requirements are such flights flown to comply with?

@curious_cat I have no numbers, but I'd guess just about never.  All the training can be conducted in simulators and there is no real reason to take an airplane offline to train in.  If they did, those flights would be operated under part 91.

In addition to the lost revenue taking an airplane out of service to use it for training the cost of operating an airliner (even empty when it's going to be using the least amount of fuel) would be prohibitive. That old joke about it costing $2,000 to make a 360 in an airliner has a grain of truth to it.

I have heard this answer many times before. And yet, I have seem BA conducting A380 training flights in South Africa (Durban I believe). I've also seen Ryanair 737s performing circuits. What are these for?

@Ben some airlines do offer familiarization flights (mine was 3 trips around around the pattern and 3 full stop landings in the middle of the night).  Other reasons you might see that are for maintenance flights where all you need are a few circuits to test something for them.

@Ben: Also, aren't flights sometimes needed to initially get data to set the simulator in some tricky part of the flight envelope?

@curious_cat The manufacturer of the Aircraft would normally work with the simulator manufacturer on all the characterization work. This is usually done initially from the design of the aircraft and checked on the simulator first before being demonstrated during the aircraft type acceptance tests. If the sim says the plane will fall out of the sky in a given scenario it is never normally tested to that point as aircraft & test pilots are expensive. Also they need sims before the aircraft for initial training. Tricky operations are tested out in the sims first.

might want to add that not all pilots qualify for ZFT training. I don't have any numbers but I'd venture a guess and say the majority >50% do not. In this case (in EASA) at least 6 takeoffs and landings are required in actual airplane as part of training (say 1 h actual aircraft)


text:
How much thrust is needed by an aircraft to have vertical takeoff?
In some airshows, I have seen some big aircraft (like 737) takeoff almost vertical.
Generally, fully-loaded passenger/cargo planes don't do that, I guess due to safety issues but I think there needs a lot of extra thrust to have an almost vertical takeoff.
So is a vertical takeoff possible in every kind of airplane (without excessive weight and giving full thrust) or only some specific ones can do it?

To have vertical lift you need as much thrust as the weight of aircraft. Most figter airraft can do this but not commercial plane.

@vasin1987 figter airraft? Is that a kind of raft that floats in the air upon which fig trees grows? Or did you mean Fighter Aircraft?

The important thing to note is that the aircraft isn't gaining altitude any faster than usual: it just stays on the runway longer before pulling up sharply because it looks more impressive. If anything, this usually results in a lower overall climb rate (measured as time-to-altitude).

First, let's agree on terminology: What you saw in airshows is a vertical flight path. Flying horizontally first, the airplane pitched up until the nose was pointing straight into the sky.
Surprisingly, no thrust is needed to perform this maneuver. Even gliders can do it. What happens is that kinetic energy is converted to potential energy, the rate of potential energy increase being proportional to flight speed and aircraft mass. If you start fast enough, this vertical flying can be maintained for several seconds, until the aircraft runs out of speed and stops in midair, followed by an uncontrolled drop. Skilled pilots orient the aircraft in the right direction by starting a rotation around the vertical axis at the top of the climb, so the following drop lets them pick up speed again with the correct nose-down attitude. Now potential energy is converted back into kinetic energy until speed is sufficient for a pullout. In aerobatics, this maneuver is called a stall turn or a hammerhead stall.
A few conditions apply, however. The airplane must be able to fly fast enough to have the needed potential energy to sustain the maneuver through the pitch-up phase. This is helped if its engines add energy, so the kinetic energy bleeds off more slowly. Also, at the top of the maneuver it is flying at zero g, and this requires at least that all items on board are securely fastened. Lastly, the pitch-up needs a load factor bigger than 1 g, and the higher the maximum load factor is, the tighter this pitch-up can be flown.

Now the question has been changed: The vertical flight path is flown right after take-off. This limits the entry speed for the maneuver, and gliders will not be able to do this. If we take the 737 from the question and fly it with no payload and little fuel, the flight mass $m$ of a 737-700 is 40 tons, and the installed thrust is about 200 kN (sea level static). Let's assume that the pilot accelerates after takeoff to a horizontal speed $v$ = 100 m/s (194 KTAS) while retracting the flaps, the kinetic energy ($0.5\cdot m\cdot v^2$) is equivalent to a potential energy ($m \cdot g \cdot h$) of an altitude gain h of $$h = \frac{v^2}{2\cdot g} = 510 m$$
The engines deliver less thrust with increasing speed; maybe 40% of the weight, so the airplane will still accelerate for the first 18° - 20° of the 90° flight path change. This will delay the point when speed has been bled off and add maybe 150 m to h. At 100 m/s a pull-up with a radius of 500 m will add a load factor of 2 g. The pilot needs to pull less first and harder at the end of the maneuver in order to stay within the maximum load factor of 2.5. When speed bleeds off, so will wing lift, and in the second half of the pull-up the wing will not create enough lift to change the flight path enough in order to reach the desired vertical attitude. Also, the aircraft will be very low for a safe recovery.
This makes it rather doubtful that an airliner can be pulled up to a vertical climb after takeoff. If the maneuver is started at a higher speed and with a little more distance from the ground, I see no reason why it should not safely be possible.

From a physics standpoint, you're right, and this is how it works for sufficiently-maneuverable aircraft, but are airliners actually sufficiently maneuverable for a truly vertical flight path without stalling before they get to 90 degrees? Personally, I'd tend to guess that what the OP really saw was something more like 30-45 degrees nose-up attitude, not really 90. If anyone could shed some light on whether any airliners are really capable of safely accomplishing a (briefly) vertical flight path, though, it would be appreciated.

Nitpick: the kinetic energy will not bleed off more slowly.  It will bleed off (i.e. be converted into PE) at the same rate; the engines will just "add" (i.e. convert from fuel) more kinetic energy into the system, so converting all of it takes longer.

@imallett: This is very nitpicky! I was thinking about "speed will bleed off more slowly", but that would have required to translate speed to kinetic energy in the mind of the reader. So I settled for the easier to understand (and still not wrong) term.

For a craft weighing x kg you need g*x Newtons of thrust minimum for sustained vertical flight (ref.: high-school physics). In other words for each metric ton of weight you need around 9.81 kN of thrust. The A380 has a operational empty weight of 276 t so it would need 2707 kN of thrust to sustain a vertical climb. Its 4 engines each producing 320kN don't even come halfway.
However pitching up to vertical and continuing on while shedding speed is possible without thrust.

I couldn't easily find any references so don't want to make the edit willy-nilly, but I believe it would be more accurate to say that the engines produce 320 kN each?

@MichaelKjörling Yes, you're right. A380 has 288,000 lb of max thrust and an empty operating weight of 610,000 lb. Its MTOW is 1,268,000 lb. So, at absolute best (really better than the best, since you can't take off with no fuel,) it would have a thrust/weight ratio of 0.47 and, at MTOW, it would be 0.23. So, no sustained vertical flight for the A380. :) What would be fun would be to get a 737 (with re-enforced wings and greatly lengthened landing gear) outfitted with GE90-115b's. Each one of them would be capable of accelerating the aircraft in a vertical climb by itself. :)

An empty concord would be at 0.85, it should be able to fly vertical for quite some time :D

Despite the hype that some news articles like to add to their stories, with talk of "near-vertical" takeoffs and "terrifying" turns, those maneuvers are less extreme than they look. While certainly higher than normal, 30 degree pitch after takeoff or 60 degrees of bank are not vertical. Yet the air show still said that was too much, so typical displays of non-aerobatic planes are going to be even less than that.
To answer the question in the title, take a look at the AV-8B Harrier II attack jet. It has a max vertical takeoff weight of 20755 lb, and its engine produces 23500 lbf of thrust. This corresponds to a thrust-to-weight ratio of about 1.13:1, since the thrust must exceed the force of gravity in order to accelerate the plane upwards. In contrast, the 787-9 from the above example has 142,000 lbf of thrust, and weighs between 304,000 lb and 557,000 lb. If the plane weighed 400,000 lb on that takeoff, the thrust-to-weight ratio was about 0.36:1. Although converting kinetic energy to potential energy will allow a plane to climb faster, the amount of kinetic energy available to an airliner at takeoff is more limited.


text:
How do you calculate indicated airspeed on a flight plan?
I'm planning my cross country journey for my flight test and it seems I forgot how to calculate my indicated airspeed.
The indicated airspeed must be from the POH, right?
The the true airspeed is from the IAS and TAS correction table in the POH?
Then the ground speed is based on TAS, with the wind factored in?
I'm flying a mid-late 70s Cessna 172 skyhawk.

If you are planning a flight a you forget how to do something, ask your instructor. Anyway since it is a flight test you should be more familiar with all steps involve before you start hurting yourself.

Don't overdo it. Put something reasonable in the filed flight plan. No one will have a problem with a slightly inaccurate airspeed in a filed flight plan.

You do not calculate indicated airspeed: It is an indicated value, you read it from the airspeed indicator. (I suppose you can calculate it if you really want to, but I've got no idea why you would want to do so in the context of flight planning.)

You determine what airspeed to use for flight planning purposes using your aircraft's performance data (from the POH or other manufacturer documents): There will usually be either a chart or a table giving true airspeed as a function of power setting and density altitude.
(True Airspeed is a more useful number for planning purposes as it saves you a calculation.)

When in flight you can calculate your true airspeed based on the indicated airspeed and density altitude. You can then compare this to your planned figures from the performance charts to determine if adjustments are necessary to your flight plan (ETA, Fuel use, etc.)

It should go without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that the images above should not be used for flight planning purposes - hence why I intentionally cropped out the aircraft models from the pages.